So for the employees who are at risk for lung diseases and other health issues due to the freedom-loving smokers it's "fuck 'em, let them get another job"?

This is the only area where limitations can be entertained; but that is a question of consensuality verus opportunity and the obligations of the employer to their employees in maintaining a safe workplace.

Oh and for all those who bitch about smokers raising healthcare prices it seems they clock off earlier than others and never get to cash out most of what they put into the system with their taxes; much better than those who live out their days collecting a pension and needing constant assistance.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer This is the only area where limitations can be entertained; but that is a question of consensuality verus opportunity and the obligations of the employer to their employees in maintaining a safe workplace.

That's much more generous than other libertarians would be. I'm glad to hear it.

This topic and the other topic cross over so much; I support the right to smoke, to sit in a smoke filled bar, to ban smoking from a privately owned bar by the owner, to walk away from a smoker on the basis of liberty - I think that those freedoms of action are important, most here don't want to be anti-freedom so they will argue on the basis that second hand smoke constitutes enough harm to demand a blanket ban of smoking in public places - they also extend the definition of public places to include privately owned premises that are open to the public (such as bars).

Since I support the right of people to control what does or doesn't go into their bodies I support the right to smoke, it will do a lot of harm and will shorten your life leaving you in a crappy state with higher cancer risk and heart problems not to mention aging poorly and having stained teeth - it's a dumb thing to do, but it's what free people should be allowed to do if they so choose. I feel the same way about other harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin as well as less harmful drugs like marijuana and LSD - it is a consistent position even if in practice it would lead to a lot of bad results (from the bad decisions that people would make for themselves).

Now those drugs (except marijuana) don't suffer the problem of second hand smoke; so if people aren't being disengenuous about their support for a pro-freedom philosophy with the view that second hand smoke constitutes non-consensual harm then they should logically support decriminalisation of other drugs and perhaps even the use of those drugs in settings such as clubs.

I much prefer people who are unapologeticly opposed to ilicit drugs on the basis that people shouldn't be able to harm themselves than those who couch their own will for social control in the glamour of supporting a liberty (be it clean air, lower health costs, no more negative liberties).

But why not the other way round?
With my non-smoking I don't harm anybody. With smoking people harm others.

I'm also opposed to any drug besides alcohol, since alcohol in low quantities doesn't have this much of harmful characteristics.
You can also be both opposed to "ilicit drugs on the basis that people shouldn't be able to harm themselves" and support the liberty of clean air.

But clean air is an environmental factor and not a liberty. I think a reasonable definition of liberty is a freedom of action - if I want to do something then I will be free to do so
- If I want to blaspheme Jesus then I have the liberty of free speech to say Jesus F***ing Christ
- If I want to go to the protest then I have the liberty of freedom of association.
- If I want to engage in consensual sex with another woman or man of consenting age I have the freedom to do that
- If I want to drop acid then I should have the freedom to take mind altering drugs.

Any idea of freedom that doesn't mean the freedom to do the stupid thing isn't real freedom.

Not in certain situations - if you are a guest in my house and I am hypothetically smoking then your right to breath air that won't kill you means asking me to stop or leaving; and I can ignore your requests and rudely keep on smoking if I so choose. None of the situations involve people being forced into smoke situations that don't have the option of walking away.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer But clean air is an environmental factor and not a liberty.

But you don't have to poison the air even further by the action of smoking.

Of course "clean air" is an environmental thing, and especially in cities not really present.
But this doesn't justify to poison the air in a public venue when it's not necessary.
I can't avoid waste gasses of cars or industry, but I can avoid of the additional smoke inside a room.

That's a different thing than the liberties you are listing below.

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Not in certain situations - if you are a guest in my house and I am hypothetically smoking then your right to breath air that won't kill you means asking me to stop or leaving; and I can ignore your requests and rudely keep on smoking if I so choose. None of the situations involve people being forced into smoke situations that don't have the option of walking away.

We are not speaking of your house, but public venues.

And, sorry, but when I'm in a bar or disco, and I ask others to please stop smoking because my health already is messed up, the responseis hardly ever tha they think of my situation, they don't even understand the nice way I asked.

They just react like as if I said: "Stop fucking smoking!", but I didn't.

Right so we are down to defining what constitutes public space and what control the government has to regulate public space - a question of property rights - if I own the property then don't I have the right to say what legal activities are and aren't allowed to go on.

The libertarian argument is yes: it would also say that if as non-smokers we don't like being exposed to toxins then we should excercise our liberties and spend our hard earned cash at venues that make us feel more comfortable. If we choose to stay in the club even though we don't like it then we have made a choice with implicit consent about that exposure.

I don't know any club here in Berlin that is exclusively for non-smokers.
So I would spend a lot of money for finding out that I can't enjoy my spare time being at a club.

Another thing is as I said before: Why do I as the one who doesn't pollute the air with toxins have to leave the club, whereas the one who does pollute the air with toxins shouldn't be required (or in an act of social behaviour) just go out of the builidng for five minutes to have his smoke? I'm sure he would find three people going with him, so that he doesn't have to be their on its own.

But most people don't even reduce the amount of cigarrettes they smoke. Still there gets one cigarrette smoked of another.

And there is a difference whether you have your own home, or open a pub, or club to the public, and thus, laws may be different.

If done well there could even be a part of the venue designated to smokers.
It should just be done in a way that the smoke doesn't affect the ones that don't want to (second hand) smoke, so both could enjoy the party.

That's why I'm not for this categorical freedom

We non-smokers are also picking up and their is progress made.
But that's basically because the government debated about some banning of smoking in public places, and then the owners of clubs and bars started to do something before there is a law that requires certain means of non-smoker protection.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Right so we are down to defining what constitutes public space and what control the government has to regulate public space - a question of property rights -

Let's kick this up a notch. It's damn close to Dr. King Day here in the US. Let's go.

Does the "government" have a right to tell a shopkeeper that he must sell to blacks and whites? Or does the shopkeeper have the "right" to disallow blacks from shopping in his store? Or, according to the libertarian fantasy, will countless black shopkeepers suddenly open competing shops to serve the black community, thereby making the discrimination a somehow moot point?